HRC people are treating Obama like Humphrey treated McGovern in '72

[Ken Burch]

George McGovern was actually not far behind Nixon in the late spring of '72(only five points at one point, according to Theodore White's "The Making of The President 1972"). Then Hubert Humphrey, in the California Primary, even though McGovern had done nothing to him and even though Humphrey knew he was already out of the running, did a massive ad blitz(aimed at winning over defense industry workers, I guess)in which he blasted McGovern as week on defense. In the fall, the Nixon campaign quoted those ads verbatim week after week. We know the result. And we can fairly say that Humphrey was largely responsible for destroying the chances of a good man who had worked with Humphrey on major legislation for years, agreed with him on most issues and who had campaigned hard for him in the fall of '68, bringing millions of Peace Democrats back into the Humphrey fold and nearly helping him pull off one of the great upsets in U.S. political history.

This year, HRC is Humphrey and Obama is McGovern. Can we learn from '72 and avoid the same pointless mistake?

[DemzRock]

1. OK, lets learn from it.

Since McGovern's campaign collapsed pretty quickly for a number of reasons, I would say lets make Humphrey (Hillary Clinton) the nominee.

[Ken Burch]

3. It collapsed largely due to sabotage from the regular Dems.

They withheld all support from the ticket, and for no good reason.

A lot of them also wrote big checks to The Big Dick.

No, the lesson is don't sabotage, not complete the trash job.

[mattclearing]

4. The Clintons campaigned for McGovern.

Yet another campaign they didn't take seriously and lost.

[Ken Burch]

7. My understanding is that there are people from the McGovern campaign

who STILL blame Clinton for losing Texas(he was the state coordinator there.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Was It Clinton's Fault McGovern Lost The Other Forty Eight States?

~

[mattclearing]

13. No, but it was bitter establishment Dems like Clinton now who refused to help out.

Or outright sabotaged him.

Edit: and McGovern was an old white war hero.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. George McGovern Was Indeed A War Hero As Opposed To Nixon Who Saw Fifteen Minutes Of Battle In WW ll

But the Democrats were portrayed as the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion" and being out of the main stream...

[Ken Burch]

16. No, not personally, and that's not the point.

Clinton came to power as the leader of a faction of Democrats that basically evolved from Democrats for Nixon. HRC deliberately tailors her campaign to the same group(though they are a weak minority in the party). That's what the DLC is, people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. How Was He A Democrat For Nixon?

He actively campaigned for McGovern...


As far as his politics he was the governor of Arkansas for Chrissakes... He wasn't going to run as a South Side Of Chicago, Upper Manhattan East Side, or Berkeley liberal...

[Ken Burch]

19. He wasn't a Democrat for Nixon in '72. What I clearly said was

His support base(the DLC)was an extreme right-wing faction in the Democratic Party that was, essentially, the philosophical descendent of Democrats for Nixon.

And in Arkansas he could at least have been an economic populist.

[Mz Pip]

2. THe powers that were

in the Democratic Party essential turned away from McGovern in 72. I would hope that they will not make the same mistake this time.

[Sadie5]

5. Quit whining

You won't get very far with this. Obama has badmouthed Hillary all along. And so have most of his staff. Nice try Ken.

[gaspee]

6. Yeah

The lesson is don't nominate someone unelectable, then blame it on the other guy... er... gal!

[Ken Burch]

9. He was as electable as anybody else before the Humphrey slurs.

And it wasn't McGovern's fault that Muskie wasn't chosen. That was solely the work of Nixon's dirty tricks team. McGovern would have campaigned hard for a Muskie-led ticket. Did Muskie do a damn thing for McGovern in the fall?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Humphrey Ran Too Many Times

But I doubt he would have lost 61% of the pop vote and forty nine states in 1972...Maybe he was the proverbial "canary in the coal mine"...

[Ken Burch]

21. In all liklihood, ANY Democrat, including Scoop Jackson, would've lost heavily against the CREEP

(Committee to Reelect The President)dirty tricks, and especially once Wallace was shot. Once Wallace was out, it was always a certainty that his supporters would switch to Nixon as a bloc. They would never have backed Scoop Jackson or Humphrey, because in 1972 white southern "evangelicals" weren't pretending to like Jews yet could not have stomached a "pro-Israel" candidate.

[MNDemNY]

11. Yes, McGovern would have beat Nixon.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ken Burch]

14. If the party hacks hadn't cut him lose for no reason, it's actually possible.

Humphrey or Scoop Jackson would've lost too, after the China trip.

McGovern was sacrificed by spiteful old wardheelers and fixers who couldn't accept the fact that the kids beat 'em fair and square, and on the issues.

McGovern DESERVED united party support. He was as pro-labor as Humphrey and a hell of a lot more Middle American than that drunk delusional portrait-chatterer the hacks wrote big campaign checks to in the fall.

[Alexander]

12. I think this year, Hillary is Mondale and Obama is Hart.

Remember, Hart was beating Reagan in the polls, and Mondale was not.

Let's choose the right candidate this time.

[DemzRock]

15. Actually none of these comparisons make that much sense. n/t

[crankychatter]

20. Perfectly stated and true

If the MIC PACs win, Clinton will smile and think "2012"